Claim · model-written summary
The 4M:6S ratio did not decrease subsequent wheat yield.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- did not decreasee0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but it did not decrease yield of wheat.”
Title
Yitao Zhang; Jian Liu; Jizong Zhang; et al. PLoS ONE 2015. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129245
Other claims from this paper (14)
- Observation Maize–soybean intercropping was the optimal summer cropping system.
- Intervention effect Maize–soybean intercropping improved yield, economy and land utilization relative to maize monoculture.
- Intervention effect Maize–soybean intercropping reduced soil nitrate accumulation relative to maize monoculture.
- Observation Maize–soybean intercropping improved the residual effect on subsequent wheat.
- Observation Intercropping reduced nitrogen fertilizer use per unit area.
- Observation Intercropping increased relative maize biomass.
- Observation Border-row photosynthetic efficiency and nitrogen utilization were promoted during intercropping.
- Observation Intercropping advantage emerged at tasseling after maize nitrogen topdressing.
- Intervention effect The 4M:6S row ratio had the largest land equivalent ratio of 1.30.
- Intervention effect The 4M:6S row ratio had the greatest crop nitrogen accumulation of 258 kg ha(-1).
- Intervention effect The 4M:6S row ratio had the greatest economic benefit of 3,408 USD ha(-1).
- Intervention effect The 4M:6S ratio lowered soil nitrate after maize harvest compared with maize monoculture.
- Intervention effect The 4M:6S ratio lowered soil nitrate after subsequent wheat harvest compared with maize monoculture.
- Recommendation The authors recommended alternating four maize rows with six soybean rows as the optimum ratio, subject to further multiyear confirmation.